We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Global Cooling, Its official!!

1…468910

Comments

  • geordie_joe
    geordie_joe Posts: 9,112 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Nice_Username wrote: »
    Have you read any proper scientific studies or academic research on this subject? The IPCC report?

    Dealt with this earlier
    Nice_Username wrote: »
    The Stern Report?

    Just have, it appears to be a report about what will happen to the economy when global warming gets here. But, as far as I can see, the only evidence that it will is his his opinion.
    Nice_Username wrote: »
    George Monbiot?

    He appears to be an author and a columnist for the Guardian. Oh, and he claims to be an investagative jouirnalist.
    During seven years of investigative journeys in Indonesia, Brazil and East Africa, he was shot at, beaten up by military police, shipwrecked and stung into a poisoned coma by hornets. He came back to work in Britain after being pronounced clinically dead in Lodwar General Hospital in north-western Kenya, having contracted cerebral malaria.

    The only qualifications he admits to are "an honorary doctorate by the University of Essex and an honorary fellowship by Cardiff University"

    Both awarded in 2007. No doubt his opinion carries a lot of weight in the scientific community.
    Nice_Username wrote: »
    Jeremy Leggett?

    An oil man come greenpeace supporter. Also an author.
    His critically-acclaimed account of the first 10 years of global warming, The Carbon War, was published by Penguin in 1999. The Sunday Times called it “the best book yet on the politics of global warming”, and the Daily Mail described it as “a page-turning story in racy prose, adding: “The final chapter ... is not only nail biting, but moves the reader to tears.”
    Half Gone in the rest of the world (Portobello Books). The Independent called it “a compelling must-read for politicians, pundits and punters alike”

    Have to admit I haven't read his books, but then again I'm not a politician, pundit or punter. Nor do I like "page-turning story in racy prose" and I don't want to be in tears at the end.
    Nice_Username wrote: »
    James Lovelock?
    The book argues that human society, through greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of environmental degradation, has brought the natural world to the brink of a crisis.

    Temperatures will rise, Professor Lovelock warns, reliable supplies of water will be disrupted, life in the oceans will be compromised, food production will decline, and there will be mass migrations to areas of the planet's surface which remain habitable.

    I don't know if you realise this, but just arguing something doesn't make it true.

    I have to thank you for pointing me towards these learned people, and can assure you I will waste no time in reading anything they have written.

    Just one last question

    Have you read any proper scientific studies or academic research on this subject?
  • Aliktren
    Aliktren Posts: 306 Forumite
    geordie_joe wrote: »
    Yes, do you really believe the IPCC, and the rest?

    I
    Have you not heard of the Global Warming Petition?


    There are over 19,000 signatories now, and.........

    Might be better if you explain what you think is twaddle and why.

    you mean this petition ?

    [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Myth 2[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
    [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]American scientists don't buy it - 19 000 signed a petition against the IPCC's views and the need for the Kyoto Protocol[/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
    The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA:[/FONT]
      [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

      The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.

      The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

      The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.      [/FONT]
      [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
      [/FONT]
      [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In fact, American experts agree with the IPCC on its fundamental assertions:[/FONT]
        [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In the summer of 2001, George W. Bush asked for the assistance of the US National Academy of Sciences "in identifying the areas in the science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties," and for its "views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC Reports and the IPCC summaries." The NAS was given only a month to respond but did so nonetheless:[/FONT]
        [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions[/FONT]
        [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Despite the fact that the committee producing this report includes a notable skeptic who allegedly colludes with industry* (Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T.), the NAS report states:[/FONT]
          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. … Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years" (p.3).[/FONT]
          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]For further publications of the NAS see:[/FONT]
          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] (2002)[/FONT]
          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular](2001)[/FONT]
        • talksalot81
          talksalot81 Posts: 1,227 Forumite
          geordie_joe wrote: »
          No, depending on who was speaking, half the scientist would laugh and the other half would nod in agreement.

          I laugh at people who think man is causing global warming, and they laugh at me for not believing it.

          The difference is, I can't wait for the future to get here, and they are afraid of it.

          My point was not on the ultimate fact, afterall, even the worlds least intelligent person has a 50% chance of being right.... i meant the scientific method which has been employed....

          I should point out to you that many experienced scientists will refrain from making public views on matters such as this because they dont have all the facts so cannot provide a reasoned assessment. This tends to force the question of how the public, with even less knowledge and even less appreciation of the scientific method, can be so strong in their opinions....
          2 + 2 = 4
          except for the general public when it can mean whatever they want it to.
        • Cardew
          Cardew Posts: 29,064 Forumite
          Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
          talksalot81 wrote: »
          I should point out to you that many experienced scientists will refrain from making public views on matters such as this because they dont have all the facts so cannot provide a reasoned assessment. This tends to force the question of how the public, with even less knowledge and even less appreciation of the scientific method, can be so strong in their opinions....

          Well said!

          It seems to me that the most vociferous arguments are put forward by the Green lobby.

          Those of us who remain unconvinced of the contribution Man makes to Global Warming are considered to be apostates.
        • Nice_Username
          Nice_Username Posts: 3,735 Forumite
          Geordie joe - yes thanks, I've been reading scientific data and research for the past 10 years.

          Now, instead of posting links you've found on google to support your ludicrous assertion that global warming isn't linked to human activity (which has been accepted by every leading environmental scientist on the planet apart from those paid in petro-dollars by the motor and carbon-fuel lobby groups) I'd once again ask you to reveal how it is that you somehow know better than all those scientists..

          And please try to do better than the 'IPCC jobs-for-the-boys' conspiracy theory, or sun-spots and other proposals which have already been discredited time and again as complete nonsense.

          Incidentally when Gallileo proposed the earth orbited the sun there were similar people who refused to believe it. How long before your head comes out of the sand?
          I suspect if you are forced to look at this thread in 20 years time you might feel just a tad embarrassed.

          That is all, cheers.
        • Cardew
          Cardew Posts: 29,064 Forumite
          Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          Incidentally when Gallileo proposed the earth orbited the sun there were similar people who refused to believe it.

          What a wonderful analogy!

          The vast body of scientific opinion at the time felt so strongly that Gallileo was taking nonsense (a "ludicrous assertion"?) that they they made representaions to the Church and he was was denounced as a heretic and forced to renounce his belief!

          So as you state that the vast body of of scientific opinion believe in man made global warming
          !!!!

          Surely you are not comparing Geordie Joe to Gallileo!!
        • geordie_joe
          geordie_joe Posts: 9,112 Forumite
          1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
          Cardew wrote: »
          Surely you are not comparing Geordie Joe to Gallileo!!


          Well, I do have a little telescope and I once dropped a hammer off a tall building.
        • geordie_joe
          geordie_joe Posts: 9,112 Forumite
          1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          Geordie joe - yes thanks, I've been reading scientific data and research for the past 10 years.

          Then you'll know the earth has been getting cooler since 1998 and will be able to tell me where the global warming went, won't you?
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          Now, instead of posting links you've found on google to support your ludicrous assertion that global warming isn't linked to human activity

          Just because my assertion doesn't fall into line with yours, doesn't make it ludicrous.

          Nice_Username wrote: »
          (which has been accepted by every leading environmental scientist on the planet apart from those paid in petro-dollars by the motor and carbon-fuel lobby groups)

          Now who is being ludicrous? Anyone who doesn't accept what you accept must be being paid not to accept it!!!!!!!!
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          I'd once again ask you to reveal how it is that you somehow know better than all those scientists..

          That's easy, I believe all those scientists that you think are being paid not to accept what you accept.
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          And please try to do better than the 'IPCC jobs-for-the-boys' conspiracy theory,

          Why is it alright for you to say anyone who doesn't believe in global warming being caused by man is getting paid by the oil companies, but not alright for me to mention that the people at IPCC jobs depend on them supporting it?
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          or sun-spots and other proposals which have already been discredited time and again as complete nonsense.

          They haven't been discredited time and time again as complete nonsense. People who's income depends on us believe it is CO2 that causes the earth to get hotter have tried to discredit it. But most of those people knew it was true but changed their minds when they discovered they could sell more books if they claimed it was man production of CO2.

          Look at any science book printed before 1985 and you will see.
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          Incidentally when Gallileo proposed the earth orbited the sun there were similar people who refused to believe it.

          I'll not bother answering this as Cardew did it much better than I could.
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          How long before your head comes out of the sand?

          My head is out of the sand, that's why I know not to believe people who tell me their is a problem when their job depends on me believing I have a problem.
          Nice_Username wrote: »
          I suspect if you are forced to look at this thread in 20 years time you might feel just a tad embarrassed.

          No increase in temperature for ten years, last year was the coldest year on record. Global warming, I'll take my chances on being embarrassed in the future.
        • geordie_joe
          geordie_joe Posts: 9,112 Forumite
          1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
          talksalot81 wrote: »
          My point was not on the ultimate fact, afterall, even the worlds least intelligent person has a 50% chance of being right.... i meant the scientific method which has been employed....

          I got the wrong end of the stick, and you are right of course.

          When I was a lad I was taught that to prove something affects something else you first do an experiment without "Item X", measure the result and then repeat with "Item X". This is the only way to prove conclusively that item X had an effect.

          We can't relive the 20th century again, so we can't "repeat the experiment" without Item X (CO2).

          So we can never prove one way or the other if the CO2 we produce makes any difference to the climate.
          talksalot81 wrote: »
          I should point out to you that many experienced scientists will refrain from making public views on matters such as this because they dont have all the facts so cannot provide a reasoned assessment. This tends to force the question of how the public, with even less knowledge and even less appreciation of the scientific method, can be so strong in their opinions....

          Because global warming is a cause, a bandwagon to jump on. Just like animal rights, ban the bomb, save the whale etc. It just happens that this one became very popular, so more people jumped on it.


          Not that I'm saying the above bandwagons are wrong, they aren't, but a lot of people jumped on them without thinking it through and just blindly believe the slogans.
        • geordie_joe
          geordie_joe Posts: 9,112 Forumite
          1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
          Aliktren wrote: »
          you mean this petition ?

          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Myth 2[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
          [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]American scientists don't buy it - 19 000 signed a petition against the IPCC's views and the need for the Kyoto Protocol[/FONT]
          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
          The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA:[/FONT]
          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]


          http://www.energyadvocate.com/petiproj
          [/FONT]
          Aliktren wrote: »

          The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]

          [/FONT]The National Academy of Sciences has objected strenuously to the format of the paper, on the grounds that the Petition Project deliberately used the NAS Proceedings format to create the impression that the NAS was involved. However, the Proceedings format has headers and footers clearly identifying the publication; the circulated paper contained no suggestion at all that it was associated with the NAS.
          Objecting to it's two column format hardly makes it a hoax.

          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
          Aliktren wrote: »
          The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol.

          Well I think telling me man is causing global warming is deliberately misleading me, in the hope I will buy their books.
          [/FONT]
          Aliktren wrote: »
          [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In fact, American experts agree with the IPCC on its fundamental assertions:[/FONT]

          I like that sentence, it is written in the hope you will read "American experts agree" and think it means "all American experts agree"

          The simple fact is, some do and some don't. Although it has been stated on this thread that "every single scientist in the world believes in global warming, except those that don't."

          I have to say, as an argument in favour of man made global warming, that is the best of a bad bunch.
        This discussion has been closed.
        ★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

        🚀 Getting Started

        Hi new member!

        Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

        Categories

        • All Categories
        • 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
        • 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
        • 455.1K Spending & Discounts
        • 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
        • 603.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
        • 178.1K Life & Family
        • 260.8K Travel & Transport
        • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
        • 16K Discuss & Feedback
        • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

        Is this how you want to be seen?

        We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
        Update Your Picture